large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

moneyistooshorttomention

PasturesNew wrote: »

The other one you sometimes see is somebody "ordering wine for the table". You're minding your own business and you hear a voice from somewhere "I've ordered wine for the table...... just 4 bottles"....

I hate wine. And if I liked wine I'm sure I'd have liked to have chosen at least the colour, if not the bottle .... especially as THAT is probably the person who will announce at the end that they're splitting the bill.

I'd find that a bit presumptuous personally.

I drink wine and don't mind someone ordering a bottle, then another bottle - after consulting people to check what their preference is. But to just decide on my behalf...:(

Peter333

onlyroz wrote: »

So you don't have an answer then to why your meal would be ruined if I ate a different number of courses to you? Didn't think so.

However, I do think my own meal would be ruined if you told me that I must buy three courses that I didn't want, and had no chance of finishing, just to make you feel better. I think the restaurant owners would be insulted too, if I left most of the food I ordered - would you be willing to explain to them that you had made me order twice as much food as I wanted just to make you feel better, and that I wasn't actually insulting them or their kitchen staff?

Have to say, I find it bizarre that anyone would have their night ruined because someone else didn't eat what THEY wanted them to eat.

Actually, my wife just told me that when she went to a works do some years ago, a colleague of hers kept saying 'is that all you're having?' 'Are you sure you have enough?' 'Well THAT ain't enough to feed a sparrow.' 'You ill are ya?' Very very irritating, very rude, and totally unacceptable.

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Sexism!:D It is like the Indian restaurants that give the men Brandy and the women Bailey's, as if everyone should confirm to that taste set.

Actually my lady wife loves a drop of brandy, and doesn't like Baileys. She says it makes her feel sick. And I quite like Baileys!

It's the same with tv. When it's aimed at women, it features cookery, fashion, weight-loss etc, and when they're aimed at men, it features sport, science, and cars!

My wife likes not so much sport, but science and cars very much, and she has zero interest in fashion or cookery. The media love to slot people into little boxes that they think suit them, but no two people are the same.

Andypandyboy

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I'd find that a bit presumptuous personally.

I drink wine and don't mind someone ordering a bottle, then another bottle - after consulting people to check what their preference is. But to just decide on my behalf...:(

Surely, before doing that the person would either know the wine preferences of those around the table (which is what happens with our group now) or ask?

mumps

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I find that sad that (say for example I was a friend of yours) I'd be excluded from the nights out because I fancied a pudding instead of a starter.

Personally I don't choose my friends by their dietary requirements or choices.

It is sad isn't it, I have been having meals out for 50 years or more and I can't say it has ever been an issue. My son doesn't like sweet foods so never has a pud and I can assure you it has never stopped me enjoying one but he does like a starter. How weird if we could never share a meal again.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I suppose it's the attitude that matters. If someone is disapproving of those eating or drinking more, or someone casting aspersions on the food or drink that others are enjoying, then that will cast a shadow on the whole proceedings. But if it's a cheerful smile and 'no thanks, I don't want any more, you carry on', then that is a different scenario.

But why would any one disapprove if you are out for a meal and enjoying the company? I think the only hint of being annoyed is if people assume others should subsidise them. In my younger days when we went out more it was a standing joke that we, as a couple, were subsidising friends as we didn't drink. Admittedly as we were generally in a police crowd, and yes Life on Mars was quite accurate about the police culture back then, it was true but it was them laughing about it and bringing it up. Mind you we weren't an over sensitive bunch so all gave as good as we got.

Georgiegirl256

Andypandyboy wrote: »

For example, every January 12 of us go to a dinner in Leeds. We only meet with one other couple from the group during the rest of the year. We always buy wine for the table, we always buy in rounds. This has happened for the last ten years, it is what we do. Now, if a new couple came along should we change what we do to suit them or should we expect them to fit in?

From my perspective, if that was us joining a group I would fall in with what the majority did and consider it good manners to do so.

What would happen if someone like me who doesn't like wine joined your group?

Andypandyboy

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

What would happen if someone like me who doesn't like wine joined your group?

Then of course you wouldn't pay for it if you weren't having any of it.

If you were having other drinks, then you would be (expected to be) in the rounds for those.

moneyistooshorttomention

Andypandyboy wrote: »

As you quoted me I'll bite......

Tenous link to eating out, or are you suggesting that splitting the bill is illegal or immoral?:rotfl:

I am not sure your comment has anything to do with my quote or indeed the thread, but if you would care to explain the link I would be fascinated.

My point is that you have said to PN that going out socially seems a bit "fraught" (ie were suggesting she should stay home in order not to get into what you would describe as "fraught situations") and I was pointing out that even staying quietly at home can be a bit "fraught" as well (ie social context of noticing what the neighbours are up to that they "didn't oughter be").

In or out - one can find that some peoples way of operating "leaves a bit to be desired". So PN might as well go out and enjoy her meals out and hope there isn't a "Mr Steak and Lobster" guy there taking the michael out of everyone.

Is there actually any context where things might not get a bit "fraught"? - because I've not yet come across it....

Georgiegirl256

Peter333 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: That sounds like it would be VERRRRRY sweet!

I guess so! Does taste exactly like vimto though, and it's probably the only way I'd ever use up a bottle of port!

mumps wrote: »

It is sad isn't it, I have been having meals out for 50 years or more and I can't say it has ever been an issue. My son doesn't like sweet foods so never has a pud and I can assure you it has never stopped me enjoying one but he does like a starter. How weird if we could never share a meal again.
.

I know, I'm making my husband sit at another table next time we go out....because his surly face annoys me and spoils the enjoyment of my starter! How has it taken so long to realise this?

Georgiegirl256

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Then of course you wouldn't pay for it if you weren't having any of it.

If you were having other drinks, then you would be (expected to be) in the rounds for those.

Fair enough. I'd go along with that.

moneyistooshorttomention

mumps wrote: »

This thread has made me remember a Christmas lunch many years ago, I think it was the early 70s. We had all been putting money into a kitty every month when we got paid so we could go out for a posh Christmas meal. It was a really nice restaurant, probably the poshest place I had ever been at the time. The meal was five courses if I remember correctly and it was a very nice meal and it did go on for hours. All was well until the men were given expensive cigars and brandy at the end of the meal and we got coffee and a posh mint. Now speaking personally I preferred the coffee and mint but a few women got annoyed as it was obvious that the men had got rather more for their money than the women. The spirit of Christmas was rather ruined, none of the women actually wanted a cigar but a few wanted the brandy.

Yep....count me in as someone that would have been more than a little annoyed about that. I would have turned round at the time and told the waiter that I would have the "cigar and brandy" rather than the coffee and mint please. They wouldnt have dared say "But that's the male option and you're not a man" (as that would be clear sexual discrimination) and I would have got my brandy.

Personally - I would have kept right on arguing my point until I got my brandy. I would have felt "honour bound" to make sure that never happened to any women again...and that both sexes had their choice of the two options (and I would have taken the cigar with me for anyone I knew that smoked them - or, alternatively, left it crumbled on my plate).